Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9210963" data-attributes="member: 7023840">It's not that any of your points are bad. But this (your post) is why D&amp;D has had the issues with the martial/caster balancing. Let's ignore everything else. What's the real difference between a martial and a caster? Well, a caster gets spells, and martial doesn't. That's pretty much it, right?So here's the thing- people that play casters want to be able to do the &quot;cool things&quot; that martials do. You know, so they won't get bored. As you write, what is it that people can disagree with? Why shouldn't casters get something ... um ... other than spells?But that brings up back to the original distinction- martials don't get spells. But casters want their spells, plus they want the stuff that martials do. Which is why we've seen this ratcheting up of abilities- casters get more and more &quot;martial-like&quot; powers (more hit points, more ability to wear armor, more weapons, scaling cantrips so they don't have to abide by stupid martial weapon restrictions, more skills if you go down the dark path of the bard, and so on). Plus they get all the spells. Meanwhile, martials, increasingly, either turn to spells (Paladin, Ranger) or have to just live in the satisfaction that they're not spellcasters ... or something.What you want is totally normal, and certainly the way that the game has moved. But it comes with a cost- the marginalization of non-spellcasters, which has, in turn, led to increased spellcasting for all classes. This may, or may not, be a bad thing. But there's a reason that people propose fixes like this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9210963, member: 7023840"] It's not that any of your points are bad. But this (your post) is why D&D has had the issues with the martial/caster balancing. Let's ignore everything else. What's the real difference between a martial and a caster? Well, a caster gets spells, and martial doesn't. That's pretty much it, right? So here's the thing- people that play casters want to be able to do the "cool things" that martials do. You know, so they won't get bored. As you write, what is it that people can disagree with? Why shouldn't casters get something ... um ... other than spells? But that brings up back to the original distinction- [I]martials don't get spells[/I]. But casters want their spells, plus they want the stuff that martials do. Which is why we've seen this ratcheting up of abilities- casters get more and more "martial-like" powers (more hit points, more ability to wear armor, more weapons, scaling cantrips so they don't have to abide by stupid martial weapon restrictions, more skills if you go down the dark path of the bard, and so on). Plus they get [I]all the spells. [/I]Meanwhile, martials, increasingly, either turn to spells (Paladin, Ranger) or have to just live in the satisfaction that they're not spellcasters ... or something. What you want is totally normal, and certainly the way that the game has moved. But it comes with a cost- the marginalization of non-spellcasters, which has, in turn, led to increased spellcasting for all classes. This may, or may not, be a bad thing. But there's a reason that people propose fixes like this. [/QUOTE]

Verification